Is Europa really the "highest priority" of the community?, Cleave said it was at LPSC? |
Is Europa really the "highest priority" of the community?, Cleave said it was at LPSC? |
Mar 15 2006, 05:50 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
From Emily's LPSC blog: "Bob Pappalardo would not sit down until he got Cleave to acknowledge that Europa is the consensus highest priority of the planetary science community."
Cleave was obviously poorly prepared for this session, but I don't see that this acknowledgement is either meaningful or particularly accurate. If Europa were the "highest priority" of the PS community as a whole, then one might wonder why we were spending all this money on Mars. I could easily imagine that Europa is the highest priority of the outer planets community, but frankly I was surprised when Europa Orbiter appeared in the '07 budget (presumably the result of some serious lobbying on someone's part.) It was pretty obvious to me then that there would be no money for it, especially in the aftermath of JPL running the old EO project into the ground with cost overruns and engineering upscopes. (And JIMO is best forgotten.) Don't get me wrong, I would love to be involved with a Europa mission (we did what I think was a good proposal design for EO) but I don't see either the money or the political support being there in the near term. I know it's frustrating, but one has to be realistic, and it might help to avoid the aura of entitlement that I perceive is building in some parts of the community (not referring to you, Bob). Of course, I am just a lowly engineer. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 20 2006, 06:19 PM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
This is turning into an awfully interesting debate, and I need to put in some more thought on it. So for now I'll just mention that consideration is apparently being given to adding one more instrument to Juno's payload: a combination near-IR spectrometer and camera.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1564.pdf Looking at it again: during Juno's (brief) extended mission, this gadget might -- repeat, MIGHT -- provide justification for having the craft make one close flyby of Io, to get the detailed mineralogical data that Galileo couldn't get because of the last-second partial failure of its own NIMS, and to map hotspots on Io better. This is a longshot, though -- their primary concern is making sure that the craft is destroyed before it has any chance to hit Europa. |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Mar 20 2006, 09:10 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Mar 20 2006, 10:01 PM
Post
#4
|
Guests |
Yes, it's a good thread with several good thoughts scattered throughout the posts. Torrence Johnson et al. have an interesting abstract for COSPAR 2006. |
|
|
Mar 20 2006, 10:32 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
This has been insightful.
Europa currently has large advantages in what I would call "programatic" factors: The science has been digested, and the priorities have largely been evaluated. Enceladus and Titan won't catch up for a while. As it stands now, Europa should clearly get the next mission. However, if CEV and other factors keep us from flying a Europa mission for long enough, some of those advantages will evaporate. If we find ourselves in the unfortunate circumstance of being 10 years past Cassini's death and nothing has flown yet, Enceladus or Titan could catch up in terms of Cassini science having been assimilated, and either of them might prove to be easier missions that Europa. Then Europa's only advantages might be that it has been a subject for exploration longer and that the other Galileans would benefit from the tour leading to Europa orbit. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:41 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |